Initially my idea was to run two blogs - one for general personal comment (moans and grumbles) and the other for my professional life as a graphic designer. However I couldn’t resist the temptation to link them both at the outset, the idea being that those clients with a mind to stick around wouldn’t be bothered by some of my personal comments - mainly because they’d probably got the measure of me in face-to-face situations anyway.

Recently, mainly with the advent of Twitter and my (surprisingly) keen adoption of it, I’ve changed my feelings on the subject of personal disclosures. To be honest, my business experience tells me that those prospects who don’t ‘get me’ on a personal level are unlikely to want to work with me, or become long term clients. Indeed, I’m sufficiently long in the tooth to realise that I don’t want to work with people I can’t get along with.

So, over at Wisely if sincerely there’s a new author: DocDelete. He is me, Ken Davidson, but without the trappings of graphic design. Ultimately, when I can beat a new theme into submission, entries will be segregated from the professional ones but still eminently visible.

Some say blogs should be based around one subject - and yes, most successful blogs are those which are intently focused. However, my approach has ever been one of being interested in many things. Well, if a blog needs focus, then the focus of Wisely if Sincerely is me! If that means I cover an eclectic bunch of topics then so be it.

Somebody out there might be able to correct me, but I recall Dave Gibbons strongly justifying the confined panel and page layout of Watchmen. He was on a panel at some convention or other just as DC was releasing Watchmen - and I’m sure Dave would’ve mentioned the same rationale in interviews elsewhere. If memory serves (and look, quite often it doesn’t these days!) he /forced/ himself to use a rigid nine panel layout, to ensure that his illustrations were the best they could be to relate the story - without falling back on big zig-zag splash panels with KAPOWs plastered all over. He only breaks from this when the scene demands a larger panel - allowing himself only a refreshingly few such diversions.

The result is a story that plays out with a specific meter for most of the time, only hastened occasionally by the tone and interaction between the characters’ dialogue.

Now, I’ll get something straight here and now: I’ve no problem with a comic being turned into a movie. I also don’t mind if a movie version diverts strongly from the events in the comic. These are completely different delivery mechanisms, and having a line-perfect adaptation would seem, to me at least, to be a very immature expectation.

However, a ‘limited animation’ video production of the Watchmen graphic novel has been produced, apparently under the guidance of Dave Gibbons himself. By ‘limited animation’ I guess they’ve added a few explosions and lighting effects, cut-out a few characters, and enlarged a few punching fists. I’m sure a workmanlike job has been done, and it will be appealing. However, I haven’t seen the thing, but for video delivery there’s no way a whole page could be viewed (and read) on the screen.

So, bang goes the rigid nine panel layout, and presumably some of the tension.

You could argue that the addition of a soundtrack would compensate: but I’d argue that this would advance the notion that this ‘motion comic’ is destined to be an unloved bastard hybrid.

Of course, Mr Gibbons is entitled to change his mind over the course of 20 years, and he’s entitled to earn a living. Or is it a case of the licensed property really being out of his hands, and the production company would’ve gone ahead with this anyway? So, better to be involved and have some input, than none at all?

Just take a look at this picture. Go on. If you’re a cyclist would you even attempt to use this micro-diversion? Okay, granted somebody on a mountain bike tootling along at 5mph might not be jostled too much, but for any other cyclist, perhaps tooling along on a road bike or racer, would look upon this with justified horror.

The camber of the pavement, and the poor quality of the kerb step-down conspire to make the ejection point a mite wobbly. A car passing at the same time would be faced with a bicycle pointing across its path. Not good.

These stupid little cycle ramps litter Dovehouse Lane in Olton, near to my house. They were tacked on after the road was pinched down into chicanes some years ago. Meet Joe Cyclist - the perennial afterthought.

Did the chicanes slow vehicular traffic? Well, judging by the fact that some of them were later scrubbed out due to being more like obstructions than traffic-calming measures,  I’d hazard that the whole project was a waste of time and money.

Me? I ignore the cycle ‘path’ and treat the whole shebang as if it were a parked car. I do hope I don’t get into trouble with the police…

Related posts:

1. Retweeting @widgetyegg: we are…

Related posts:

1. Do something useful with the i…

Related posts:

1. I like ‘traditional’ Brit cath…
2. In the news…